And you guys said lobbying GALLUP doesn't work!

[ghemminger]

Here's my email!

Ron Paul has been included on the list of Republican candidates for president in every poll Gallup has conducted this year. Ron Paul's name is read in random rotation with each of the other candidates running for the Republican nomination. In Gallup 's most recent poll, conducted Oct 12-14, 2007, Ron Paul is supported by 5% of Republicans interviewed.





Judith Keneman

Executive Assistant to the Editor in Chief

The Gallup Poll

502 Carnegie Center, Suite 300

Princeton, NJ 08540


Don't just wait for change! MAKE the system change !!!!:)

[foofighter20x]

Here's my email!

Ron Paul has been included on the list of Republican candidates for president in every poll Gallup has conducted this year. Ron Paul's name is read in random rotation with each of the other candidates running for the Republican nomination. In Gallup 's most recent poll, conducted Oct 12-14, 2007, Ron Paul is supported by 5% of Republicans interviewed.

Bingo... They admit to tinkering with the numbers to exclude those they don't believe to be "likely primary voters" for the GOP.

Eat your heart out, Kylejack. :cool:

[margomaps]

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here. Gallup is regarded as "The Gold Standard" ;) among public opinion research companies. As far as I know, they've been doing their phone polls exactly the way we want (i.e., all candidates included, names presented in random order) from the get-go. So no lobbying is/was required to get Gallup to do the right thing.

[ghemminger]

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here. Gallup is regarded as "The Gold Standard" ;) among public opinion research companies. As far as I know, they've been doing their phone polls exactly the way we want (i.e., all candidates included, names presented in random order) from the get-go. So no lobbying is/was required to get Gallup to do the right thing.

Your wrong Margo - Polling companies can easily skew thier results by the people they interview and the way in which they do it....IF we apply much pressure RP #s will go UP!

edit

[kylejack]

I'm not sure what point is being made here. She says they've been shooting straight with Ron all along.

[margomaps]

Your wrong Margo - Polling companies can easily skew thier results by the people they interview and the way in which they do it....IF we apply much pressure RP #s will go UP!

if we keep YOUR sheep type additude nothing will ever change....If you want to be polite - please do it at church not HERE!

1) You didn't address my point.
2) Please don't use phrases like "sheep type attitude" to describe me. It's insulting and childish.
3) The polling companies are not out to get Ron Paul. If you want to take issue with a specific poll's methodology, fine. But I don't understand the point of picking on Gallup here. According to your own post (I still don't understand the point you were trying to make, btw), Gallup is in fact polling in the manner that we desire.
4) Please correct me if I'm missing something here.
5) And please make an effort to do it politely. This has nothing to do with church -- it has to do with civility.

[plopolp]

It would be interesting to see their raw data. I'm afraid that they adjust the answers so that those who voted last time (for Bush) get overrepresented because they are assumed to have higher propensity to vote in the primary. However, the issues and the candidates have changed so it would be questionable to do so.

You know, if 50% of the population are women, but only 45% av those asked are women, they (opinion investigators) normally adjust the raw results in order to "simulate" the results as if 50% av the participants were women. They would basically multiply the womens answers, and dividing the mens answers, by 1.1. Such adjustments is part of what differs a random sample from a statistically representative sample!

It is common to use a question like "How did you vote last time?" as basis for a similar adjustment. If 80% voted for Bush last time, but today only 40% say they did, then those who say they did would have their weight multiplied by 2. (And this is a known problem because people evidently LIE about how they have voted historically! Or they don't remember, because it seldom adds up, especially when the popularity of the person elected has dropped drastically...)

The raw data and a detailed account of their calculations would shed light on this.